PRABHAKAR RAGHU SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition, received through Jail, takes exception to the decision of the District Judge, dated 18 th November, 2011, imposing punishment of deduction of 30 days of remission period, as a result of overstay of Furlough period, by the Petitioner, for about 16 days.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was released on Furlough on 8 th August, 2010 and the period was to expire on 31 st August, 2010. However, the Petitioner applied for extension of time, to the Appropriate Authority. The Appropriate Authority rejected the said application on the finding that the Petitioner has already availed of one extension in the year 2010. That finding was on the basis of the factual position that the Petitioner had availed of Furlough in February, 2009, which was to expire on 12 th March, 2009, but, at his request, it was extended from 13 th March, 2009 till 26 th March, 2009. He was again released on Furlough on 8 th December, 2009, which period was to expire on 21 st December, 2009. But, once again, it was extended from 22 nd December, 2009 till 4 th January, 2010. As a matter of fact, considering the sweep of Rule 13 of the rules of 1959, the Appropriate Authority was not competent to grant extension for the second time in the same calendar year i.e. 2009. Be that as it may, since the extension of the second Furlough, granted to the Petitioner, in the year 2009 fell in the year 2010, the Authority assumed that it would result in second extension, which was not permissible under Rule 13 of Rules 1959. Rule 13 reads thus:

(3.) On plain reading of this Rule, it is obvious that the Sanctioning Authority is competent to grant extension of Furlough Leave up to 14 days only once in a "calendar year" and no further extension can be granted to the prisoner on the same conditions. The question is, whether the second extension given to the Petitioner in December, 2009, which incidentally spilled over upto 4 th January, 2010, in calendar year 2010, can be reckoned for the purposes of considering the request of the Petitioner for extension of Furlough Leave, granted in August, 2010. The expression "once in a calendar year" would and ought to mean in the same English calendar year in which it is made and granted. In our opinion, since the said extension granted in December, 2009 was in the previous calendar year, which incidentally spilled over to the calender year 2010 upto 4 th January, 2010, that cannot be reckoned for considering the request made in 2010. In other words, the request for grant of extension of Furlough period, made by the Petitioner in August, 2010, ought to have been considered as the first request made in the calender year 2010.